I do not see how we can deny that the case against Holt is substantially the same as that of Stanton & the others. Sir E. Wingfield described the enquiry as a travesty of justice (see GR1178/1922/32(III) & M9720/48).
It appears that evidence against Holt was submitted to us - case against him had the witness in Holt's case, but was differentiated from that of Stanton & the others by the circumstance that there "was one witness who said that he had actually received bribes from Holt." So his case is similar to Scott's first conviction in 1899 (20089/99). Of course, the value of this witness evidence is unknown.
I think we should bring to the Governor's attention that if the Governor is satisfied that Holt's case is substantially the same as that of the others, he should be accorded the same treatment.
"To proceed asking for all the papers in the case as proposed in JJA.2219 on 20089/99 Jul 23/09 by Mi Cox's minute on this proper."
Write to M-Lawson & say that Holt's case was considered and, as at present advised, there do not seem to be sufficient grounds for reopening it after this long interval of time. But say that after his appeal through Col: Hemp in 99, in reply which was given refusing to reopen the case, Holt, in the statement which accompanies his petition, says that he wrote to Mi Chamberlain (Duke of Devon). This letter cannot be found; we would be glad to know whether Holt can say if he ever received any answer and, if not, why he waited for 3 years before making a representation.
Then the papers can wait for Mi Cox, but I think that the case should not be reopened.
The petition is unsigned, but for the present, we need not notice this point.
CP.L 23 Sept
Page ...
...
at same
:
evan
lum
evidence againsb
las
呼
then
agamat
in whose
the other
Ser E. Wingfield
described the enquiry,
travesty of justice (see mink m 9720/48)
A
I do not see how we
be the same bisement |
to the When bas hem giv.
can deny
as
cy
Siren
I would so write othe
Gorsemor, sending copy, & giving kin
interie aucior.
her Luces.
It appears that con never
اسمه
subunited to us - case aegerust him it
BM
-211
had the widens in Holl's
but sa
J
cos kuows the
Em
Differentiatit fram that
of Stanton & the others by the circumstance that there "was one witness who said that he had actually
paniel bribes
Holt. Su his Coxs minuti
*
Sott's first fortition in 1899 (20089/99). Of cours
the value of this witness evidence is unknown.
G
+
list I think we Goormor's attention to it
saging,
My h
ut to call the
at the same time
thrat if the Goo is satisfied that Holler
case is substantially, the same as
that of the
others he shi be accorded the same treatment
"To proceed asking for all the
papers in the case as proposed ins
JJA.2219
on 20089/99 Jul 23/09
Mi Cox's nauke on.
This
is cove
by Holt's on This proper."
as
823
Write to M-Lawson & say that Holt's case was considered and as at present advised then do not seem to be Sufficical grounds for ac posing it after this long interval of time but say that after his afgual through Col: Hemp is 99 and t
in riply which was given refusing to the
reopen the case Holt, in the statement white accompanies his petitia
patitia, Says
s that he Wrote to Mi Chamberlain (Dusk the conds). This letter cannot be Frank of wor would
be glad to know whether Holt can sinks At he loer received
any
answer and
not
if Why he he waited for 3 year before matting a representation
Then the papers can wait for Mi Cox
but I think that the cave should not be reopened.
The
petition is unsigned but for need not notice this posit
CP.L
23 Seft
at sace
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.